Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court

Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court

Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court

                                                          

By John Brace (Editor)
First publication date: Friday 28th July 2023, 17:36 (BST).

Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)

Previous published articles on this blog about hearings in this case can be read at:-

ICO accuse Jack Beecham of breaching bail conditions (24th November 2022)

and

Trial of Jack Beecham at Liverpool Crown Court delayed due to COVID (8th November 2022)


This was a For Mention hearing heard before His Honour Judge Swinnerton in Court 4–3 on the fourth floor of the Liverpool Crown Court. The Defendant was Mr Jack Beecham (who was present but unrepresented, but not sitting in the dock). Representing ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) was Mark Friend (who was a barrister at Lincoln House Chambers).

This was a hybrid For Mention hearing as although Mr Jack Beecham was present physically, Mark Friend (for the prosecution – ICO) joined remotely via video. The hearing was listed to start at 2.00 pm on Monday 10th July 2023.
Continue reading “Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court”

Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America

Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America

Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America

                                                    

By John Brace (Editor)

First publication date: 28th October 2021, 20:24 (BST, GMT+1).
Updated 29th October 2021 to add Kromberg declaration links

Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence
Royal Courts of Justice, London, UK (resized). Picture credit sjiong, made available under the CC BY-SA 2.0 licence.

Please note that comments are turned off due to the ongoing nature of this case.

For the last 2 days (27th October 2021 and 28th October 2021) I have observed an appeal hearing
heard before the Lord Chief Justice (The Right Honourable The Lord Burnett of Maldon PC) and The Right Honourable Lord Justice Holroyde which is a judicial review from the earlier decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”) to the United States of America (“US”). This earlier decision was made in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser on 4th January 2021 (all 132 pages can be read on the Courts and Tribunal Judiciary website) by following this link.
Continue reading “Barrister for Government of United States of America asks for redactions (before disclosure to the press) to document during day 2 of UK (United Kingdom) High Court judicial review appeal hearing of earlier judicial decision not to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to America”

Appeal over ICO request to disclose Hoylake Golf Resort contract (EA/2017/0191) ends with First-tier Tribunal Judge Farrer QC, Wirral Council and ICO agreeing to partial disclosure

Appeal over ICO request to disclose Hoylake Golf Resort contract (EA/2017/0191) ends with First-tier Tribunal Judge Farrer QC, Wirral Council and ICO agreeing to partial disclosure

Appeal over ICO request to disclose Hoylake Golf Resort contract (EA/2017/0191) ends with First-tier Tribunal Judge Farrer QC, Wirral Council and ICO agreeing to partial disclosure

Hoylake Golf Resort contract cover page
Hoylake Golf Resort contract cover page

This blog has previously reported on First-tier Tribunal (information rights) case EA/2017/0191 which was Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council’s appeal of the regulator ICO’s decision notice FER0672223 (which resulted from an EIR request I made first on the 12th December 2016.
Continue reading “Appeal over ICO request to disclose Hoylake Golf Resort contract (EA/2017/0191) ends with First-tier Tribunal Judge Farrer QC, Wirral Council and ICO agreeing to partial disclosure”

What was in the 11 A4 page witness statement of Surjit Tour (Wirral Council) about a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of a meeting of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee (EA/2016/0033)?

What was in the 11 A4 page witness statement of Surjit Tour (Wirral Council) about a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of a meeting of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee (EA/2016/0033)?

                                             

At the outset I will make four declarations of interests.

1) I am the Appellant in this case (EA/2016/0033).
2) My wife was my McKenzie Friend in case EA/2016/0033.
3) I made the original Freedom of Information request on the 29th March 2013.
4) I am referred to by name (Mr. Brace) in paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the witness statement of Surjit Tour.
5) My profession ("local press") is referred to in paragraph 27.

This continues from two earlier blog posts headlined What were the 6 A4 pages of partially redacted minutes of a Headteachers’/Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee meeting and the name of a LGA Associate Tutor that Wirral Council disclosed voluntarily in response to a First Tier-Tribunal (General Regulatory chamber) hearing (case number EA/2016/0033) about a Freedom of Information request first made in March 2013? and What was in the 5 A4 page witness statement of Andrew Roberts (Wirral Council) about a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of a meeting of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee (EA/2016/0033)?.

Line breaks are indicated by a double horizontal line break. A picture of Surjit Tour at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee from the 15th June 2016 is below so people reading know who I’m referring to. I have included his signature, typed name and handwritten date at the end of the witness statement as an image.

Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016
Surjit Tour (Monitoring Officer (Wirral Council)) at the Coordinating Committee held on 15th June 2016

Continue reading “What was in the 11 A4 page witness statement of Surjit Tour (Wirral Council) about a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of a meeting of the Headteachers’ and Teachers’ Joint Consultative Committee (EA/2016/0033)?”

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other